Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Who can afford a ‘livable’ place? The part of living global rankings leave out

Who can afford a ‘livable’ place? The part of living global rankings leave out INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 2021, VOL. 13, NO. 1, 70–82 https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2020.1812076 ARTICLE Who can afford a ‘livable’ place? The part of living global rankings leave out Susannah Cramer-Greenbaum Institute for Technology and Architecture, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 27 July 2019 As global livability rankings gain press attention and powerful influence with policy Accepted 8 August 2020 makers, we need an expanded critical debate on their context and problems. This essay narrates a brief history of three influential global livability rankings and critiques KEYWORDS several major flaws in their criteria. We demonstrate how both Mercer and EIU’s business Livability; city ranking; model dictates an artificial split between livability and the cost of living that has comparative urbanism; permeated current popular conceptualisations of livability, and focus on the lack of sustainable housing; city housing affordability as a ranking criterion. This essay evaluates top-ranked cities against branding; global cities perceptive and quantitative measures of housing cost, and shows how many of these cities share extremely high housing cost burdens. A just city should provide housing opportunities for all residents, not just the global elite for whom livability rankings were initially designed. Livability rankings, as currently conceptualised, distract from that goal. Introduction 1975; McCann 2004; Taylor 2011; McArthur and Livability is today’s buzzword, used in the press with Robin 2019). This essay critiques three annual global uncritical ease and increasing regularity (McArthur and rankings that claim to measure livability in cities Robin 2019). Developers use the term casually to around the world; the EIU Liveability Index, the describe a desirable urban amenity (Livingstone Mercer Quality of Life Ranking, and Monocle 2019). News outlets breathlessly report annual livability Magazine’s 25 Most Liveable Cities Index, and also and quality of life-ranking results, and city governments analyzes the Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI), pro- crow when their city takes top marks. In August 2017 duced once in 2012. The methods used by these the Premier of Victoria, home to the repeat winner ranking systems are opaque, imprecise, inconsistent, Melbourne, posted a press release titled ‘Seventh and biased, and these rankings neglect housing Heaven for the World’s Most Liveable City’ (Victoria affordability, a basic component of livability. Province 2017), to commemorate Melbourne topping In what follows, we discuss the inherent difficulty the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Liveability Index and subjectivity of defining livability, and introduce for 7 years in a row. Vienna retained its own top spot in the EIU, Mercer, Monocle, and GLCI ranking systems, the Mercer Quality of Living ranking, and Die Wiener giving an overview of their origins and how they are Zeitung quoted the Mayor of Vienna, saying ‘Vienna used. We then critique the opacity of their methods regularly excels in city rankings, which is no coinci- and the inconsistency of their criteria. The critique is dence, and I believe the people of Vienna can be very based on an extensive review of livability literature, proud of their city’ (Die Wiener Zeitung 2017). and an interview with the Head of City Research at Policy-makers and local governments take these EIU, which offers a rare glimpse into methods usually livability indices seriously, although they were not deemed proprietary. We analyse the ranking results, originally designed to inform urban policy (Brown from which we can infer significant problems in the CONTACT Susannah Cramer-Greenbaum cramer@arch.ethz.ch Institute for Technology and Architecture, HIB E 33 Stefano-Franscini- Platz 1 8093, ETH Zurich, Switzerland © 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 71 methods used, focusing on the lack of housing afford - In Kaal’s history of livability’s evolution, he demon- ability criteria and its effects. strates how urban actors, from geographic theorists to As cities compete to be more livable, the exclusion political parties, co-opted the concept to mean differ - of housing affordability as a criterion denies afford - ent things for different agendas. Given this history, he ability the attention livability discourse garners. This argues it is critical ‘to contextualize the use of livability essay argues for a reconceptualisation of livability by asking ourselves the question where, when, by predicated on everyone being able to find and afford whom and why . . . the concept has been used’ (Kaal a place to live. Boundless urban development over the 2011, p. 544). This essay contextualises how global past decades has created advantage and wealth for ranking systems define the term by analysing the some, and displacement and disadvantages for others systems’ origins. (Fainstein 2001; Amin 2006; Tonkiss 2013). Urban Noting that livability literature was ballooning, in regions have long served as gateways to new lives, 1975 the American Council of Planning Librarians economic opportunities, and communities (Harvey released an annotated bibliography of the growing 2003; Price 2008; Sassen 2014). These urban opportu- field. They concluded ‘the measurement of livability nities are increasingly endangered. Livability rankings, and the construction of livability indicators are rare phe- serving elites and global competition for them, have nomena. In spite of their rarity, considerable attention is helped enable a troubling ‘gradual alignment of devoted to such indicators because of their impressive urban élites and central urban spaces to the interest potential for the application of what is known . . . about of global capital’ (Amin 2006, p. 1017). livability and as an influence on the development of public policy’ (Brown 1975, p. 6). Tools that measure livability took on significance in urban policy, in part What ‘livability’ might mean because they addressed the lack of livability measures The meaning of livability defies easy explanation, noted in the librarians’ report. They offer an accessible remaining a determinedly ‘fuzzy’ and flexible concept solution to the need for globally comparable urban data despite attempts at its definition across multiple dis- (Robin and Acuto 2018), thereby exerting an outsize ciplines (Brown 1975; Kaal 2011; Ruggeri et al. 2018; influence on urban policy debates over livability. McArthur and Robin 2019). Researchers often bring Before the onset of global livability rankings, defi - their professional focus to defining livability, based nitions of livability consistently included housing cost on the tools and culture of their disciplines. Planners as an important criterion. Kaal cites a Dutch definition might describe livability through zoning strategies, of livability from 1959 that puts ‘proper housing’ first public space, walkability, and transit connections, and foremost (Kaal 2011, p. 536). As the Dutch defini - while architects might describe livability through the tion of livability evolved, it continued to cite ‘housing experience of building forms (Ruggeri et al. 2018, problems’ as a major threat to livability (Kaal 2011, p. 251). Urban quality can be defined through a more p. 537). phenomenological lens as well, tying livability to the The global rankings this article reviews, by simpli- subjectivity of human experience moving through fying and quantifying such a flexible concept (Brown space (Radović 2016). No discipline holds the copyright 1975; Kaal 2011; Ruggeri et al. 2018; McArthur and to the term. There is no universal definition. Robin 2019), stake their claim as experts in the dis- In addition to disciplinary distinctions, cultural var- course and create a narrative easily digested by the iations make setting any global standard for livability popular press. However, unlike the earlier definitions challenging. Global ranking systems claim of livability that Kaal describes, the version of livability a universality not matched by the inherent subjectiv- these rankings promote leaves out any measure of ity of the criteria they choose. A Japanese study on housing affordability. livability discusses the difficulty of even translating the word ‘livability’ into Japanese. Does it mean com- Ranking systems fortable, prosperous, or lively? (Capitanio 2017, p. 14). Livability rankings project the specificity and authority Organisations ranking cities for livability define the of quantitative comparison, but struggle to measure term in many ways. Mercer, EIU, and Monocle purport- a notoriously slippery concept (Kaal 2011; McArthur edly measure livability, or ‘quality of life,’ a term taken and Robin 2019, p. 10; Ruggeri et al. 2018). to be synonymous, as both terms are vaguely defined 72 S. CRAMER-GREENBAUM but target similar criteria. While there are countless varieties of city rankings covering economic perfor- mance or specific market sectors, this essay focuses only on those that quantify livability in cities world- wide. Systematic overviews of these rankings have been conducted based on their methods (Conger 2015), their criteria (Kaklauskas et al. 2018), and the divergent cultural value systems embedded in them (Capitanio 2017). This article is not intended to be a systematic overview, but rather a discussion of key missing criteria, why it is missing, and the consequent exclusive conceptualisation of livability the rankings Figure 1. Mercer, EIU, Monocle, and GLCI livability ranking criteria. project. The original global livability indices are the EIU Liveability Index and the Mercer Quality of Living Mercer, and Monocle intentionally screen their full pro- Survey (Taylor 2011; Conger 2015). Monocle cess for measuring criteria from public scrutiny, citing Magazine’s annual 25 Most Liveable Cities Index proprietary methods and research. In many cases the began in 2007 (Tuck and Brûlé 2018, p. 11), rapidly scores in each category are assigned subjectively (Taylor gaining comparable press attention (Conger 2015). All 2011, pp. 11–15), subject to biases depending on by and three rankings are annual, actively and regularly inter- for whom the ranking is conducted (Tan 2012; Conger jecting their framework for livability into the broader 2015; Capitanio 2017; Ruggeri et al. 2018). The widely livability discourse (McArthur and Robin 2019, p. 6). The divergent ranking results make evident the subjectivity Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI) was produced once of the ranking criteria and methods. The significant in 2012 at the National University of Singapore in variation in outcome is shown in Figure 2. In 2015, of response to the existing global rankings. The GLCI the 40 cities that made either Monocle, Mercer, or EIU’s attempts to provide a ‘best in class’ ranking by expand- top 25, 20 featured in only one of the three indices, and ing the definition of livability beyond the criteria only eleven cities were featured by all three. While all ranked by EIU, Mercer, and Monocle (Tan 2012, p. 2). four rankings include some criteria related to housing, The authors write, ‘The pertinent question concerns none incorporate criteria specifically designed to mea- how we are to justify the construction of another live- sure the availability of affordable housing relative to the able cities index without repeating or duplicating average incomes earned in the city. indices which are currently available’ (Tan 2012, p. xi). The ranking takes the ‘ordinary person’ perspective, claiming ‘The GLCI takes into explicit account a comprehensive list of the everyday concerns of the ordinary household: the maintenance of law and order, the availability of affordable healthcare, the average quality of the public school system, the accessibility to tertiary level training, and the adequacy of the mass transit infrastructure’ (Tan 2012, p. 2). The criteria ranked by the EIU, Mercer, Monocle, and the GLCI are shown in Figure 1, [Insert Figure 1] broadly focusing on categories of stability, healthcare, culture, environment, education, and infrastructure (Sarkawi et al. 2017). While the overall categories of criteria are in rough alignment, there are significant variations in how the criteria and subcriteria are weighted (Sarkawi et al. 2017). The rankings do not publicly offer specific quantitative analysis useful to cities targeting improve- Figure 2. Top 25 cities from the 2015 Mercer, EIU, and Monocle ment in their score (Kaklauskas et al. 2018). The EIU, livability rankings, and their intersections and overlap. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 73 Ranking system origins: livability vs. cost of Both Mercer and the EIU provide two distinct rank- living ings that separate cost of living from quality of living. The livability rankings were designed to determine Neither the EIU ranking nor the Mercer index has ever hardship bonuses, but have by default determined claimed to rank city livability for every city dweller. how these companies define liveability. The Head of Both the Mercer ranking and EIU index originated as City Research at EIU acknowledges that there is no tools for multinational companies looking to relocate reason for excluding affordability from liveability their employees (R. Slavcheva, personal communica- other than the ‘legacy’ model the companies have tion, 27 February 2019; Taylor 2011, pp. 11–14). always used (R. Slavcheva, personal communication, Mercer’s website explicitly states, ‘Mercer is the lead- February 27, 2019). ing provider of data on quality of living for employees One additional reason Mercer and the EIU separate sent to work abroad. Ongoing research on the practi- cost of living and livability might be that Cost of Living calities of daily life for these expatriate employees and analyses based on hard data are expensive to produce, their families forms the basis of our annual ranking of and both Mercer and the EIU sell the proprietary the quality of living’ (Quality of Living City Ranking | results as part of their business model. However, they Mercer 2019). Mercer acknowledges that their rank- release an overview of their livability rankings for free. ings are not for everyone, and that ‘disadvantaged This creates a false distinction between livability and residents can experience a poor quality of life in cost of living, while simultaneously popularising only a place with a high objective quality of living’ (Taylor the freely accessible livability rankings. The EIU releases 2011, p. 14). Their rankings are intended only for a free preview of their Cost of Living and Liveability corporate employees moving abroad. reports, but the full 2018 Cost of Living report was Both Mercer’s and EIU’s livability rankings were available for 995 USD (World Wide Cost of Living meant originally to supplement the Cost of Living 2018 2018). Mercer provides a per city Cost of Living data the companies provided to multinational report for 760, USD but provides their livable cities employers relocating staff or opening offices in new ranking for free (Quality of Living City Ranking | locations. Cost of Living reports set international pay Mercer 2019). This artificial split between cost of living scales, while companies use livability rankings to cal- and livability uncritically promotes, widely and pub- culate additional bonus pay. Mercer and the EIU both licly, a concept for livability that completely excludes research Cost of Living data extensively, and sell this the cost of living. proprietary research and data to global companies The authors of the GLCI report, although attempt- (Conger 2015, p. 5). The EIU Cost of Living report is ing to address livability for the ordinary person, still over 30 years old. EIU’s Liveability Ranking originated perpetuate this segregation of livability from cost of 20 years ago as a ‘sister survey’ (R. Slavcheva, personal living. In 2016 some of the authors of the GLCI communication, February 27, 2019) to the Cost of released a critique and enhancement of existing cost Living report, designed to calculate hardship bonus of living indices, again adapting the indices, as they pay in addition to base salary. The EIU created the had for livability, more towards the needs of the word ‘liveability’ with an ‘e’ to distinguish a new ver- ‘ordinary person’ (Giap and Duong 2016). However, sion of the survey from the first iteration designed to in this critique they maintain the separation of cost of calculate hardship pay percentages for relocated cor- living from livability that originated in Mercer and porate employees (Conger 2015, p. 6). The method EIU’s separate evaluation of salary and bonus pay. was updated in 2004 with expanded criteria for healthcare, stability (safety), and infrastructure, and the addition of education criteria (R. Slavcheva, perso- How the rankings are used nal communication, February 27, 2019). It continues to omit living costs. Living costs appear in the Cost of Press and governments around the world treat liva- Living survey, whereas the livability rankings were bility as a fundamental objective of city govern- meant to be supplementary, determining only how ment, despite the concept’s exclusive origins. much additional hardship pay a corporate employee Urban governments regard EIU and Mercer’s rank- might receive for being transferred to a location ings as a valuable barometer and benchmarking deemed less ‘livable.’ tool (Conger 2015; McArthur and Robin 2019; 74 S. CRAMER-GREENBAUM R. Slavcheva, personal communication, February 27; municipalities in assessing factors that can improve 2019) that can enhance urban ‘competitiveness’ their quality-of-living rank’ (Conger 2015, p. 7). EIU (Giffinger et al. 2010; Anttiroiko 2015), even though consults with cities on livability as well. According to these rankings treat livability as an additional set of the head of City Research at the EIU, the Liveability criteria to be evaluated after the fundamental Index and reports ‘inform and underpin other basics of living are met. Slavcheva proposes that research our public policy consulting arm undertakes’ cities looking to improve their rankings should (R. Slavcheva, personal communication, February 27, focus on their residents’ basic needs, but the cost 2019). The stubborn legacy model of consulting com- of living, specifically housing costs, are not panies, separating the cost of living from ‘liveability,’ accounted for in the rankings. This stark absence persists and pervades city policy aimed at raising of any housing affordability criteria in the EIU and a city’s livability score. One’s quality of life is directly Mercer rankings continues to perpetuate impacted by one’s ability to afford living within a definition of livability excluding the cost of living, a reasonable distance of the amenities touted by and the resulting disproportionate representation quality of life indices (Mitchell and Popham 2008; of highly unaffordable cities in the top tier has Marans 2011; Allen 2015; Hogan et al. 2016). Cities a ripple effect on urban policy and governments. need effective policies that frame livability as a universal right, not a list of desirable amenities. Impact on policy and governance Blunt instruments Governments take these rankings seriously. Many city governments hire consultants to help them move up The promoted use of rankings to enhance city brands the EIU ranking, or to be selected for the rankings at (Giffinger et al. 2010), has created a recursive feedback all (R. Slavcheva, personal communication, loop between livability rankings and urban policy. February 27, 2019). The Canadian Intergovernmental Eugene McCann demonstrates how, in the case of Committee for Economic and Labour Force US ‘Best Places’ rankings, media attention valorises Development (ICE) took these rankings seriously the ranked qualities, incentivising cities to focus policy enough to commission a comprehensive report on on these qualities (McCann 2004). City rankings accrue them in 2011. The report analysed the criteria used, power as cities feel required to compete (Brenner and evaluated how Toronto performs, and made recom- Wachsmuth 2012) to attract capital and talent around mendations for policymakers. The report concluded ‘If the world. The assumed necessity of competition for properly interpreted, city ranking studies are useful transnational skills and money exerts enormous pres- diagnostic tools. In light of their methodological sure on cities to achieve global recognition (Begg flaws . . . they should, however, be taken with a grain 2002; Moilanen and Rainisto 2009; Anttiroiko 2014, of salt. City ranking studies should be the start of 2015; Vanolo 2017). Rankings of various kinds have research and analysis by policymakers, not the end. become powerful through increasing media exposure They can help policymakers decide what questions to and subsequent popularity (Giffinger et al. 2010, pp. ask and what issues to focus on. Ultimately, however, 309–310). Cities recognise their value as strategic they should be supplemented by other tools’ (Taylor branding tools that enhance global competitiveness 2011, p. 69). The report’s author thoroughly unpacks (Giffinger et al. 2010; Anttiroiko 2015), thereby allow- multiple methodological problems with the most pre- ing rankings to affect policy decisions. valent city-ranking studies, and recommends caution The measurable and trackable qualities of city in using them, but still suggests these rankings should rankings make nuanced understandings of how cities start the conversation, helping ‘policymakers decide relate to one another impossible. There are many what questions to ask and what issues to focus on.’ limits to comparative studies using ‘quasi-scientific’ Livability rankings still set the agenda for cities criteria (Robinson 2016, p. 194). While the ‘quasi- focused on improvement, even if they are taken with scientific’ creates powerful and easily digestible narra- the recommended grain of salt. tives, the requisite averaging of data across wildly Mercer not only sets the tone for city improvement diverse territories within city-regions belies a more goals, but also actively consults within its own frame- complex reality (McArthur and Robin 2019, p. 13). work of value. Conger notes that ‘Mercer now assists This reality includes emerging models of urban INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 75 cooperation between cities, countering the competi- define the boundaries (Brenner and Schmid 2014; tive nature of rankings (Roy and Ong 2011). Ranking Conger 2015). Different boundary definitions for the systems by nature privilege competition over this same city cause metrics to diverge, and there is wide- evolving cooperation, driving livability discourse spread recognition that the political boundary at the deep into the city-region competition embedded in core of many cities has become an almost meaning- neoliberal global urbanism. The ranking structure can- less distinction (Brenner 2017, p. 189). Studies on not incorporate productive theorisations that cities Swiss commuting conclude that a nodal network of should relate to each other (Roy 2003; Ward 2008), frequent rail service and a distributed bus network, and form larger global networks across which not only combined with the strong regional ties of the popula- capital but also information and ideas flow. tion, have turned almost the whole country into one The collective idea of the ‘good city’ has changed integrated metropolitan region (Dessemontet et al. dramatically throughout history, making it impossible 2010, p. 2799). to apply an objective standard of quality ‘across space Many city and regional governments around the and time’ (Amin 2006, p. 1010). Amin argues for an world have recognised the phenomenon of conurba- urban ‘habit of solidarity’ (Amin 2006, p. 1012), akin to tion by developing agglomeration management zones Roy and Ong (2011) and Ward’s (2008) call for theoris- and plans. Livability rankings collect city-based data, ing urban areas in productive relation to each other, but don’t account for these nuances in city definition, not as competitors. He calls for envisioning ‘outcomes making no distinction between cities and their metro that benefit the more rather than the few’ (Amin 2006, areas. EIU’s Head of City Research admits they use ‘fluid’ p. 1012), an aim not supported by potent rankings definitions of city boundaries to create their city rank- that feed dangerous competition. ings, dependent on the data available from each city (R. Slavcheva, personal communication, February 27, 2019). This makes the comparison of urban scale data Quantifiable (mis)information: what the highly suspect. Does the EIU ranking compare rankings leave out Copenhagen Municipality or Greater Copenhagen to Many problems exist with the criteria used by global the city of Zurich or the Zurich Agglomeration? The ranking systems. While the GLCI index explicates lack of clear definition in Mercer, Monocle, and the EIU’s a clear breakdown of their ranking criteria, weighting, definition of each city undermines the claim to quanti- and data sources, Mercer, Monocle, and the EIU treat tative authority these rankings promote. this information as proprietary and confidential. This Even if the rankings were to collect only agglom- opacity of method in a purportedly quantitative rank- eration or metro area data, each city might define ing is problematic itself. Backsolving from the ranking these terms differently from each other. There is no results, by comparing the top ‘most livable’ cities to clear global metric or standard to define the extents of other rankings of cities that measure cost of housing, urbanised areas. The Canadian report on city-ranking indicates significant potential inconsistencies in the studies points out not only the variation and opacity ranking methods and criteria. The same approach of how most major ranking indices define ‘city,’ but reveals how Monocle, Mercer, and EIU’s top-ranked also the methodological dubiousness of comparing cities compare against two measurements of housing cities that may well be defining their boundaries dif- cost; one perceptive, and one quantitative. ferently from each other (Taylor 2011, p. 58). Which cities to rank? A second challenge of ranking cities is how the cities to be ranked are selected. The Borders, selection, and culture GLCI excludes a number of cities based on data avail- Three major flaws of livability ranking methodologies ability (Tan 2012, p. 45). Good data collection is not are how boundaries are determined, how cities to be a reasonable criterion of being a livable city, but in ranked are selected, and how cultural biases are data-based rankings, it becomes one. Urban data col- assumed. This is not an exhaustive list; these flaws lection varies wildly around the globe; data is over- highlight the range of challenges in comparatively sampled in Europe, Oceania, and North America rela- quantifying urban data. tive to their respective populations, and under- How to define the urban? One of the most basic sampled for Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Robin challenges of quantitatively evaluating cities is how to and Acuto 2018). The global regions with more 76 S. CRAMER-GREENBAUM available data correlate with those that feature most to the third biggest film industry in the world, and its prominently in livability indices. Data availability con- Afrobeat music pulses out to reach the ears of a global tributes disproportionately to city comparisons, and audience’ (Onuzo 2018). When culture is encapsulated having less data, or less accessible data, can make by museums, opera houses, and concert halls, Vienna cities disappear from international view (Robinson clearly excels. The cultural expressions Onuzo 2006). describes are less easily countable, and fall victim to Livability and culture: Cultural biases are inevitable either the rankings’ quantitative bent, or cultural in the perception and understanding of livability. biases in the definition of culture, or both. A study done at Keio University in Japan comparing criteria selection and weighting in various livability indices finds strong biases in the weighting of criteria. Missing cost of living For example, they cite the EIU’s strong weighting of EIU and Mercer are clear that they do not include widespread English usage, (Capitanio 2017, p. 14), affordable housing or cost of living in their rankings. indicative of the ranking’s intended purpose to eval- We compare the top ‘most livable’ cities to available uate ease of living for corporate expats. Mercer and city data on perceptions of housing availability and the EIU, followed by Monocle, make no attempt to the cost of housing, This comparison demonstrates qualify their findings within the context of livability’s how strong an effect the inclusion of affordable hous- culturally subjective nature. The GLCI claims to be ing might have on which cities are highly ranked. ‘best-in-its-class’ (Tan 2012, p. 2) by reorienting the Housing criteria in livability rankings: The EIU Index definition of livability towards the needs of the ‘ordin- dedicates one of thirty overall criteria for ‘availability of ary person,’ but still subjectively selects and weights good quality housing,’ roughly 3% of a city’s overall score the criteria that comprise ‘livability.’ (The Global Liveability Index 2018 2018, p. 9). They do These city rankings do not cater to a full range of not specify their definition of ‘quality,’ and do not include socio-cultural-economic groupings. The Keio University the cost of housing in their criteria. They only measure study states, ‘As Monocle [the magazine] targets cos- whether housing of some undefined quality is present. mopolitan, (single) urban readers, enjoying frequent One of Mercer’s ten categories is for housing, inclu- travels and abundant free time, its ranking deliberately sive of ‘Housing, household appliances, furniture, main- grants much importance to factors relating to personal tenance services, etc’ (Taylor 2011, p. 15). Mercer, like wellbeing and entertainment’ (Capitanio 2017, p. 14). EIU, does not factor the cost of housing into their rank- Monocle ranks cities for its own readers, but its rankings ing. Both EIU and Mercer have extensive data on hous- have an impact on policy beyond its readership. In ing costs in cities globally, but these costs are separately definitions of urban quality, ‘such contextual influences documented in the companies’ Cost of Living reports. makes it highly problematic to assume that models of Monocle does not publish criteria or any methodolo- the good city can travel unmodified across space and gical breakdown for the Annual Quality of Life Survey time’ (Amin 2006, p. 1010). Livability is constructed they have conducted since 2007. We take the Monocle culturally, and cannot escape its context. Guide to Building Better Cities, a collection of urban ‘best The definition of cultural institutions, as defined by practices,’ as a proxy for Monocle’s attitudes towards Mercer, Monocle, and the EIU, leaves little room for housing (Tuck and Brûlé 2018, p. 11). The authors nod cultural expression outside a limited western scope. to the importance of housing but don’t go deeper (Tuck Chibundo Onuzo, in a Guardian Opinion piece, cri- and Brûlé 2018, p. 192). The ‘best practices’ the book tiques the rankings’ myopic view of ‘Culture.’ Noting describes are a social housing complex in Mallorca, Lagos’ low rank in the EIU 2018 index, she acknowl- foundation-funded social housing in London, pre-fab edges the validity of many of Lagos’s low scores, but public housing in Knivsta, Sweden, and Kalkbreite coop- also writes, ‘In the culture and environment category . . erative housing in Zurich (Tuck and Brûlé 2018, pp. . Vienna scored 96.3 out of 100 and Lagos just 53.5 . . . 192–201). Of these four exemplars’ host cities, only Lagos is a city of galleries under bridges, where artists Zurich features in Monocle’s 2018 top 25 livable cities. paint and display for free. It’s a city of owambe parties While these singular examples contribute to the broader that last until dawn . . . Lagos is a city of fashion, home INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 77 discussion, they cannot replace a comprehensive evalua- tion of housing availability and affordability as a critical factor in one’s quality of life. The Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI) maintains the same split as EIU, Mercer, and Monocle, between ‘livability’ and cost of living, excluding the cost of living in their descriptive list of ‘the everyday concerns of the ordinary household.’ They do attempt to include the cost of housing in their enhanced index. As an ‘ideal indicator,’ they list ‘Affordability of hous- ing: To measure the cost of housing in comparison to Figure 3. Top 25 cities coloured according to the percentage of incomes earned’ (Tan 2012, p. 37). However, in their participants in the EuroSurvey 2015 who strongly disagree that it is ‘easy to find good housing at a reasonable price.’ Cities without final ranking they winnow the ‘ideal indicators’ into available data are left blank. proxy or ‘practical’ indicators (Tan 2012, p. 31). Their practical indicators for housing are the percentage of the urban population living in slums, using improved with it in Munich (European Commission 2016, p. 72). sanitation, and using an improved water source (Tan Figure 3 shows how Mercer, EIU, and Monocle’s top 25 2012, p. 41). They use the GINI index to measure cities from 2015 were evaluated by the EU study. In many overall inequality in the urban area, but in the prac- of the top cities, significant percentages of the popula- tical indicators they remove all parameters evaluating tion strongly disagreed that it was easy to find good housing affordability. housing at a reasonable price. In Munich, Paris, The Head of City Research at the EIU tells cities eager Stockholm, and Geneva, over 65% of respondents dis- to improve their EIU livability score that they should agreed that it was easy to find good housing at focus on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (R. Slavcheva, a reasonable price. personal communication, February 27, 2019), and meet Cities that are more expensive tend to rank higher for residents’ most basic needs first. Maslow’s hierarchy lists livability. When the EU asked which issues the residents physiological needs as the base of the pyramid, includ- thought were the greatest facing their city, the analysis ing food, water, sleep, and shelter in this category states that ‘The cities where housing is considered the (Maslow 1943). Shelter, on the base of Maslow’s pyramid, number one identified issue are Stockholm (61%), and central to earlier definitions of livability (Kaal 2011), Munchen (56%), Paris (54%), Geneva (51%), Greater is missing from how the EIU, Mercer, and Monocle define Paris (49%) [queried separately, along with three other the concept in their rankings. greater metropolitan areas], Amsterdam (45%) and Perceptions of housing cost: The European Union, in Kobenhavn (38%)’ (European Commission 2016, a 2015 report on ‘Quality of Life in European Cities,’ p. 165). There is significant overlap here with the top- evaluated quality of life, including cost and availability ranked cities per Mercer, Monocle, and EIU. of housing, through the perceptions of city residents. The EIU Cost of Living reports, based on external data study employed extensive surveys to collect data for frameworks, support the conclusions of the EU study’s residents’ perceptions of transit, healthcare, cultural resident perception approach. The EIU writes, ‘There is and commercial offerings, education, environment, pub- some correlation between The Economist Intelligence lic space, employment, housing, safety, governance, and Unit’s cost of living ranking and its sister ranking, the the presence of foreigners. In the section on housing, liveability survey. Put simply, cheaper cities also tend to survey respondents, roughly 500 in each city, were asked be less liveable’ (World Wide Cost of Living 2018 2018, the following question: ‘Please tell me whether you p. 5). Put another way, ‘livable’ cities, according to the strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or EIU ranking, have a much higher cost of living. The strongly disagree with the following statement – It is highly ranked cities significantly overlap with cities easy to find good housing at a reasonable price in where, according to the EU study, people perceive [CITY NAME]’ (European Commission 2016, p. 71). The serious problems in availability of affordable housing. responses demonstrate a marked variation among European cities, from 30% of respondents in Athens Calculations of housing cost: The AARP Livability agreeing with the statement and only 3% agreeing Index, described earlier as a model index, evaluates 78 S. CRAMER-GREENBAUM ‘Housing Cost Burden,’ the percentage of one’s income spent on housing. To recreate this criterion for the top-ranked global cities, we take the annual UBS Cost of Living data, exclude all categories except rental costs and average income, and calculate a Housing Cost Burden for the Mercer, EIU, and Monocle top 25 cities. The UBS Cost of Living data has been critiqued for being skewed towards expat- oriented expenses in the type of housing assessed (Giap and Duong 2016). UBS tracks three rent values in each city: rent for a three-bedroom furnished apart- ment, rent for a two-bed unfurnished apartment, and rent for ‘an apartment of typical size, location and Figure 4. Average 2015 monthly rent and average gross monthly income for cities in Mercer, EIU, and Monocle top 25, where data is amenities for the respective city’ (UBS 2018). In the available. The data come from the UBS Cost of Living survey for 2015 UBS Cost of Living analysis all three rents are and 2012. Earnings are gross earnings averaged across multiple weighted equally. For this study, we use only the professional classes. The rent average is for ‘the price of an apartment of typical size, location and amenities for the respective city.’. third category of housing, the ‘typical’ apartment for each city, orienting the housing cost burden towards the ‘typical’ city resident. The average income data comes from the UBS survey also, and represents the average of multiple professions across different socio- economic scales. This average is a blunt metric, and the results provide a broad impression of housing costs only, not meant to capture detailed city specifics. Figure 4 shows the rent and income data generated by this approach for each of the highly ranked cities in 2015 for which UBS collected data. Figure 4 demon- strates that while cities like Zurich and Geneva may have a high cost of housing, they have relatively high Figure 5. Housing Cost Burden calculated from rent as percentage of average incomes and therefore a lower housing cost income, from UBS Cost of Living data for 2015. The global average burden; i.e. residents spend a smaller percentage of burden of 23% also comes from the UBS data. their total income on housing than in other highly ranked cities. A counter-example is Paris, where housing is similar to other cities but the average income is quite UBS. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and low. A potential explanation for Zurich and Geneva Development (OECD) frequently uses housing costs demonstrating a relatively low housing cost burden burdens of over 40% to indicate ‘overburdened’ (Figure 5) but a high disagreement with the ability to households (OECD 2019). The average housing cost find reasonably priced housing in the EU perceptive burden in at least eleven of the 2015 highly ‘livable’ survey (Figure 3) is the relative availability of housing. cities was over 40%. The OECD also points out the Both Zurich and Geneva have lower rents but notor- danger of looking only at averages when evaluating iously low vacancy rates, and competition for housing housing cost burden. In their regularly updated is fierce (Federal Department of Home Affairs 2018). reported on global housing affordability in different Figure 5 shows the Housing Cost Burden for each countries, they write that housing cost burden ‘varies city that features on the EIU, Mercer, and Monocle top strongly across the income distribution and is consid- 25 from 2015, calculated as the percentage of income erably higher for the poorest households. In nearly all spent on rent. This calculation uses gross income. The countries housing cost burden as a share of income is majority of highly ‘livable’ cities have a housing bur- highest for households in the bottom quintiles of the den well over the global average of 23% calculated by income distribution’ (OECD 2019). The average for INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 79 most highly ranked ‘livable’ cities is already high; one p. 4). They are wildly imperfect but unlikely to lose can imagine the disproportionate overburdening their power. skewed towards the lowest income earners. Model definition Why this matters There are some livability rankings, more limited in According to UBS’s housing cost data in their annual scope, that do address affordability and access to hous- global Cost of Living survey, the cost of rent is the ing, making a strong case for the inclusion. One exam- biggest expense for residents in any city, on average ple is an active online ranking tool maintained by the almost a quarter of a family’s expenses (UBS 2018). UN AARP, formerly the American Association of Retired Habitat research supports this conclusion, finding that Persons. The AARP is an American non-profit serving in 200 cities around the world, households typically Americans age 50 and older. They maintain a livability paid over 25% of income for housing (Acioly 2019). index for United States city neighbourhoods that, Excluding it from the conception of livability, the way among many multifaceted criteria, evaluates housing Monocle, Mercer, and EIU do, excludes it from the costs, capping the monthly cost for housing at 4,000, significant press and attention livability receives. In USD and ranking neighbourhood livability higher the 2017 the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation produced lower the housing cost. While not a global index, this a short interview comparing Melbourne to Vancouver, example offers a compelling model for the inclusion of noting that while Melbourne keeps coming out on top economic access and affordability in a quantitative of livability rankings, Vancouver does a few things ranking system for livability. Of their index, the AARP better. CBC’s city columnist notes that Vancouver has writes, ‘Housing typically takes the biggest portion of more downtown housing, saying the city has ‘Family our paycheck or pension, and when prices soar, quality housing, housing that may be expensive but it can of life suffers. Higher monthly rent or mortgage pay- physically fit families, and we have 7,000 kids in our ments leave less money for food, transportation, and Downtown, [Melbourne] is very jealous of that’ (Quinn health care, and restrict housing options for house- and Toderian 2017). Who can afford the housing he is holds with fixed or low-to-moderate incomes’ (AARP touting is another question; he explicitly acknowledges Livability Index n.d.). The AARP index includes data on it is expensive, and Vancouver is not known for low the availability of subsidised housing, and most impor- housing prices (Devlin 2017). tantly, they include a metric for Housing Cost Burden, Livability rankings distract city governments from the percentage of one’s income spent on housing. addressing issues, such as affordable housing, that The AARP Livability Index does not face all the would not only increase the quality of life for many same challenges as global indices. Collecting this residents but also allow people to be residents who kind of data is easier for a neighbourhood than are currently excluded. Cities routinely hire consul- a city, and the index can use country-wide US tants to help them get a place on the rankings. (R. Census and Department of Housing and Urban Slavcheva, personal communication, February 27, Development data that is broadly comparable across 2019), indicating a willingness to spend resources on the US. This type of dataset is more complicated to the rankings as an end in themselves. The concept of obtain in a comparable format at a global scale, but livability continues to guide urban policy (Taylor 2011, the AARP makes a strong case that the costs of living, p. 69), and current conceptualisations must include specifically housing, are critical to evaluating livability, housing cost burdens, ensuring that city improve- and not impossible to include. Housing affordability is ment goals are not predetermined by companies a critical part of any definition of livability. As such explicitly serving corporate expats. a substantial percentage of household spending In a global neoliberal paradigm, cities leverage rank- (Acioly 2019), Housing Cost Burden has an outsize ings of their ‘livability’ to market themselves and com- impact on a household’s quality of life. pete with each other to capture global capital. The rankings feed a strong need for quantitative data and Moving forward: who can live in a ‘livable’ place? easily digestible narratives on the quality of urban life, and they continue to occupy growing space in news The AARP Livability Index described in this article media around the world (McArthur and Robin 2019, demonstrates a comprehensive model for a ranking 80 S. CRAMER-GREENBAUM that clearly defines and tracks affordability as a key Note criterion of livability. While the GLCI attempts to do 1. For full critique of UBS Cost of Living Survey methodol- this, it falls short; and its status as a one-time study, ogy, see (Giap and Duong 2016). One main critique not updated regularly, limits its ability to influence the argues that the ‘basket of goods’ evaluating for cost of livability debate. Annually released indices such as living is geared towards a highly skilled professional and not an average citizen. For the purposes of this analysis, Monocle, Mercer, and EIU have enormous impact, we have used only the housing cost data, not the cost of but work to shape cities only for the global mobile UBS’s ‘basket of goods.’ We have also used the raw data, elite to whom they cater. The AARP Livability Index and not the rankings calibrated against New York City. makes clear that a quantitative ranking of livability, despite the challenges of quantitative comparison, can still promote a more just and affordable city. The Disclosure statement Mercer and EIU infrastructure to evaluate cost of living No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. already exists; this data could be integrated to pro- mote a concept of livability that takes into account residents at different economic levels. Notes on contributor This essay demonstrates how three influential liva- Susannah Cramer-Greenbaum is a PhD Research Fellow at the bility indices omit housing costs, and thereby pro- Institute for Technology and Architecture at ETH Zürich. She mote an exclusive quality of life. Relevant topics for researches the impacts of urban development on resource dis- further study are the explicit effect of livability ranking tribution, inequality, displacement, and residential migration studies on real estate markets, as well as their long- patterns. term effect on migration of various demographics into and out of urban areas. Additionally, a comparative study showing how global rankings differ from more ORCID locally specific rankings could highlight the effect of Susannah Cramer-Greenbaum http://orcid.org/0000-0002- cultural perspectives in evaluation criteria and meth- 2391-5700 odology. This article focuses on livability studies that purport to be global but are produced in North References American and Western Europe; the East, Southeast, and South Asian liveability literature is large and AARP Livability Index. (n.d.). AARP. Retrieved 2019 Feb 15, from further studies are needed that focus on Asian livabil- categories/housing Acioly C (2019, April 5). The transformative power of housing at ity indices and their impacts from an Asian the center of the new urban agenda [Conference]. perspective. Wohnungsbau 2019 Land Nutzen!, ETH Zürich, Switzerland. Cities and city-regions absorb huge swathes of the Allen N. 2015. Understanding the importance of urban ame- world’s population. Finding a place to live in the city is nities: a case study from Auckland. Buildings. 5(1):85–99. the foundation on which other livable urban qualities doi:10.3390/buildings5010085. Amin A. 2006. The good city. Urban Stud. 43(5/6):1009–1023. build. Livability rankings assert themselves in the doi:10.1080/00420980600676717. broader livability discourse as agents of quantifiable Anttiroiko A-V. 2014. The political economy of city branding. Vol. measurement and benchmarks (McArthur and Robin 2. London: Routledge. 2019). They come in the guise of an objective metric Anttiroiko A-V. 2015. City branding as a response to global analysis, but explicitly represent ‘exclusionary and pri- intercity competition. Growth Change. 46(2):233–252. doi:10.1111/grow.12085. vatised interest’ (Amin 2006, p. 1012). They were Begg I. 2002. Urban competitiveness: policies for dynamic cities. never designed to inform urban policy, but their Bristol: Policy Press. impact in this realm is pervasive. If cities want to Brenner N. 2017. Critique of urbanization: selected essays. Vol. sustain diverse populations and flows of people, and 156. Gütersloh, Berlin, Basel: Bauverlag Birkhäuser. be more than a list of amenities for the global elite, Brenner N, Schmid C. 2014. The ‘Urban Age’ in question. Int J Urban Reg Res. 38(3):731–755. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12115. livability rankings must be treated as the highly sub- Brenner N, Wachsmuth D. 2012. Territorial competitiveness: jective barometer of elite needs that they are. The lineages, practices, ideologies. In: Sanyal, Bishwapriya, editor. pursuit of a high livability score should not dictate Planning ideas that matter: livability, territoriality, govern- who can afford urban life and the economic advan- ance, and reflective practice. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press; p. tages it provides. 181–182. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 81 Brown L. 1975. An annotated bibliography of the literature on McCann EJ. 2004. “Best places”: interurban competition, quality livability, with an introduction and an analysis of the litera- of life and popular media discourse. Urban Stud. 41 ture. Vol. 853. Manhattan, Kansas: Monticello - Ill. (10):1909–1929. doi:10.1080/0042098042000256314. Capitanio M. 2017. The relativity of liveability rankings examin- Mitchell R, Popham F. 2008. Effect of exposure to natural envir- ing the Japanese case against the global discourse. World onment on health inequalities: an observational population J Soc Sci. 5(1):12. doi:10.5430/wjss.v5n1p12. study. Lancet. 372(9650):1655–1660. Scopus. doi:10.1016/ Conger BW. 2015. On livability, liveability and the limited utility S0140-6736(08)61689-X. of quality-of-life rankings. Univ Calgary Sch Public Policy Moilanen T, Rainisto S. 2009. City and destination branding. In: Communiqué. 7(4):1–9. Moilanen T, Rainisto S, editors. How to brand nations, cities Dessemontet P, Kaufmann V, Jemelin C. 2010. Switzerland as and destinations: a planning book for place branding. a single metropolitan area? A study of its commuting network. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan UK; p. 77–146. Urban Stud. 47(13):2785–2802. doi:10.1177/0042098010377371. OECD. 2019. Housing costs over income. OECD Employment, Devlin J. 2017. Vancouver’s housing crisis. Land J. 26: August/ Labour and Social Affairs - Social Policy Division - September 2017. Directorate of OECD. http://www.oecd.org/social/affordable- European Commission. 2016. Quality of life in European cities housing-database.htm (No. 419). Onuzo C (2018, August 19). Who says the most liveable city is in Fainstein SS. 2001. Inequality in global city-regions. DisP. 37 the west? Culture doesn’t just live in museums | chibundu (144):20–25. doi:10.1080/02513625.2001.10556764. Onuzo. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/com Federal Department of Home Affairs. 2018. Quality of life in the mentisfree/2018/aug/19/vienna-lagos-economist- cities—Pocket statistics 2018. Federal Statistical Office. intelligence-unit-liveability-index https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalo Price MD. 2008. Migrants to the metropolis: the rise of immigrant gues-databases/publications.assetdetail.6926827.html gateway cities. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Giap TK, Duong LNT. 2016. Measuring cost of living for ordinary Quality of Living City Ranking | Mercer. 2019. https://mobili residents in cities: a new index. Bus Manage Stud. 2(3):76. tyexchange.mercer.com/Insights/quality-of-living- doi:10.11114/bms.v2i3.1824. rankings Giffinger R, Haindlmaier G, Kramar H. 2010. The role of rankings Quinn S, Toderian B 2017, April 20. Melbourne vs. Vancouver: in growing city competition. Urban Res Pract. 3(3):299–312. city planner puts urban centres head to head [Radio]. https:// doi:10.1080/17535069.2010.524420. www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/melbourne- The Global Liveability Index 2018. 2018. Economist intelligence vancouver-livability-1.4076935 unit. Radović D. 2016. Measuring the non-measurable: on mapping Harvey D. 2003. The right to the city. Int J Urban Reg Res. 27 subjectivities in urban research. City Culture Soc. 7(1):17–24. (4):939–941. doi:10.1111/j.0309-1317.2003.00492.x. doi:10.1016/j.ccs.2015.10.003. Hogan MJ, Leyden KM, Conway R, Goldberg A, Walsh D, Robin E, Acuto M. 2018. Global urban policy and the geopolitics McKenna-Plumley PE. 2016. Happiness and health across of urban data. Polit Geogr. 66:76–87. doi:10.1016/j. the lifespan in five major cities: the impact of place and polgeo.2018.08.013. government performance. Soc Sci Med. 162:168–176. Robinson J. 2006. Ordinary cities: between modernity and devel- doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.06.030. opment. London: Routledge. Kaal H. 2011. A conceptual history of livability. City. 15 Robinson J. 2016. Comparative urbanism: new geographies and (5):532–547. doi:10.1080/13604813.2011.595094. cultures of theorizing the urban. Int J Urban Reg Res. 40 Kaklauskas A, Zavadskas EK, Radzeviciene A, Ubarte I, (1):187–199. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12273. Podviezko A, Podvezko V, Kuzminske A, Banaitis A, Roy A. 2003. Paradigms of propertied citizenship: transnational Binkyte A, Bucinskas V. 2018. Quality of city life multiple techniques of analysis. Urban Affairs Rev. 38(4):391–463. criteria analysis. Cities. 72:82–93. doi:10.1016/j. doi:10.1177/1078087402250356. cities.2017.08.002. Roy A, Ong A. 2011. Worlding cities: Asian experiments and the Livingstone B 2019, February 8. Betting on transit—Millennials art of being global. Malden, Mass: Wiley-Blackwell. seek connected living. The London Free Press. https://calgary Ruggeri D, Harvey C, Bosselmann P. 2018. Perceiving the Livable herald.com/life/homes/condos/betting-on-transit- City. J Am Plann Assoc. 84(3–4):250–262. doi:10.1080/ millennials-seek-connected-living 01944363.2018.1524717. Marans RW. 2011. Investigating quality of urban life: theory, Sarkawi AA, Abdullah A, Dali N. 2017. A critical review on the methods, and empirical research. Vol. 45. Springer worldwide economist intelligence unit, mercer and monocle Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1742-8. quality of life indicators. J Bus Econ. 8(7):586–595. Maslow AH. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev. Sassen S. 2014. Expulsions, Brutality and Complexity in the 50(4):370–396. doi:10.1037/h0054346. Global Economy (Pilot project. eBook available to selected McArthur J, Robin E. 2019. Victims of their own (definition of) US libraries only). Harvard University Press. doi:10.4159/ success: urban discourse and expert knowledge production 9780674369818. in the liveable city. Urban Stud. 0042098018804759. Slavcheva R (2019, February 27). Phone interview with author doi:10.1177/0042098018804759. [Telephone]. 82 S. CRAMER-GREENBAUM Tan KG. 2012. Ranking the liveability of the world’s major cities: Vanolo A. 2017. City branding: the ghostly politics of representa- the Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI). Singapore: World tion in globalising cities. New York: Routledge. Scientific. Victoria Province. 2017, August 16. Seventh heaven for the Taylor Z 2011. ‘Lies, damned lies, and statistics’: a critical examination world’s most liveable city. Premier of Victoria. https://www. of city ranking studies. Intergovernmental Committee for premier.vic.gov.au/seventh-heaven-for-the-worlds-most- Economic and Labour Force Development. https://www.research liveable-city/ gate.net/publication/303444233_’Lies_Damned_Lies_and_ Ward K. 2008. Editorial—Toward a comparative (Re)turn in Statistics’_A_Critical_Examination_of_City_Ranking_Studies urban studies? Some reflections. Urban Geogr. 29 Tonkiss F. 2013. Cities by design: the social life of urban form. (5):405–410. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.29.5.405. Cambridge: Polity Press. World Wide Cost of Living 2018. 2018. The Economist Intelligence Tuck A, Brûlé T. 2018. The Monocle guide to building better Unit. cities. Berlin: Die Gestalten Verlag. Zeitung DW. 2017, March 14. Vielleicht bleiben wir ewig UBS. 2018. Global cities ranking 2018 _ UBS prices and earnings. Nummer eins. Stadtleben - Die Wiener Zeitung. https://www. https://www.ubs.com/microsites/prices-earnings/en/ wienerzeitung.at/nachrichten/wien/stadtleben/879535_ methodology/ Vielleicht-bleiben-wir-ewig-Nummer-1.html http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development Taylor & Francis

Who can afford a ‘livable’ place? The part of living global rankings leave out

Download PDF
13 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/who-can-afford-a-livable-place-the-part-of-living-global-rankings-Xd3hFlttgX

References (61)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
ISSN
1946-3146
eISSN
1946-3138
DOI
10.1080/19463138.2020.1812076
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 2021, VOL. 13, NO. 1, 70–82 https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2020.1812076 ARTICLE Who can afford a ‘livable’ place? The part of living global rankings leave out Susannah Cramer-Greenbaum Institute for Technology and Architecture, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 27 July 2019 As global livability rankings gain press attention and powerful influence with policy Accepted 8 August 2020 makers, we need an expanded critical debate on their context and problems. This essay narrates a brief history of three influential global livability rankings and critiques KEYWORDS several major flaws in their criteria. We demonstrate how both Mercer and EIU’s business Livability; city ranking; model dictates an artificial split between livability and the cost of living that has comparative urbanism; permeated current popular conceptualisations of livability, and focus on the lack of sustainable housing; city housing affordability as a ranking criterion. This essay evaluates top-ranked cities against branding; global cities perceptive and quantitative measures of housing cost, and shows how many of these cities share extremely high housing cost burdens. A just city should provide housing opportunities for all residents, not just the global elite for whom livability rankings were initially designed. Livability rankings, as currently conceptualised, distract from that goal. Introduction 1975; McCann 2004; Taylor 2011; McArthur and Livability is today’s buzzword, used in the press with Robin 2019). This essay critiques three annual global uncritical ease and increasing regularity (McArthur and rankings that claim to measure livability in cities Robin 2019). Developers use the term casually to around the world; the EIU Liveability Index, the describe a desirable urban amenity (Livingstone Mercer Quality of Life Ranking, and Monocle 2019). News outlets breathlessly report annual livability Magazine’s 25 Most Liveable Cities Index, and also and quality of life-ranking results, and city governments analyzes the Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI), pro- crow when their city takes top marks. In August 2017 duced once in 2012. The methods used by these the Premier of Victoria, home to the repeat winner ranking systems are opaque, imprecise, inconsistent, Melbourne, posted a press release titled ‘Seventh and biased, and these rankings neglect housing Heaven for the World’s Most Liveable City’ (Victoria affordability, a basic component of livability. Province 2017), to commemorate Melbourne topping In what follows, we discuss the inherent difficulty the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Liveability Index and subjectivity of defining livability, and introduce for 7 years in a row. Vienna retained its own top spot in the EIU, Mercer, Monocle, and GLCI ranking systems, the Mercer Quality of Living ranking, and Die Wiener giving an overview of their origins and how they are Zeitung quoted the Mayor of Vienna, saying ‘Vienna used. We then critique the opacity of their methods regularly excels in city rankings, which is no coinci- and the inconsistency of their criteria. The critique is dence, and I believe the people of Vienna can be very based on an extensive review of livability literature, proud of their city’ (Die Wiener Zeitung 2017). and an interview with the Head of City Research at Policy-makers and local governments take these EIU, which offers a rare glimpse into methods usually livability indices seriously, although they were not deemed proprietary. We analyse the ranking results, originally designed to inform urban policy (Brown from which we can infer significant problems in the CONTACT Susannah Cramer-Greenbaum cramer@arch.ethz.ch Institute for Technology and Architecture, HIB E 33 Stefano-Franscini- Platz 1 8093, ETH Zurich, Switzerland © 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 71 methods used, focusing on the lack of housing afford - In Kaal’s history of livability’s evolution, he demon- ability criteria and its effects. strates how urban actors, from geographic theorists to As cities compete to be more livable, the exclusion political parties, co-opted the concept to mean differ - of housing affordability as a criterion denies afford - ent things for different agendas. Given this history, he ability the attention livability discourse garners. This argues it is critical ‘to contextualize the use of livability essay argues for a reconceptualisation of livability by asking ourselves the question where, when, by predicated on everyone being able to find and afford whom and why . . . the concept has been used’ (Kaal a place to live. Boundless urban development over the 2011, p. 544). This essay contextualises how global past decades has created advantage and wealth for ranking systems define the term by analysing the some, and displacement and disadvantages for others systems’ origins. (Fainstein 2001; Amin 2006; Tonkiss 2013). Urban Noting that livability literature was ballooning, in regions have long served as gateways to new lives, 1975 the American Council of Planning Librarians economic opportunities, and communities (Harvey released an annotated bibliography of the growing 2003; Price 2008; Sassen 2014). These urban opportu- field. They concluded ‘the measurement of livability nities are increasingly endangered. Livability rankings, and the construction of livability indicators are rare phe- serving elites and global competition for them, have nomena. In spite of their rarity, considerable attention is helped enable a troubling ‘gradual alignment of devoted to such indicators because of their impressive urban élites and central urban spaces to the interest potential for the application of what is known . . . about of global capital’ (Amin 2006, p. 1017). livability and as an influence on the development of public policy’ (Brown 1975, p. 6). Tools that measure livability took on significance in urban policy, in part What ‘livability’ might mean because they addressed the lack of livability measures The meaning of livability defies easy explanation, noted in the librarians’ report. They offer an accessible remaining a determinedly ‘fuzzy’ and flexible concept solution to the need for globally comparable urban data despite attempts at its definition across multiple dis- (Robin and Acuto 2018), thereby exerting an outsize ciplines (Brown 1975; Kaal 2011; Ruggeri et al. 2018; influence on urban policy debates over livability. McArthur and Robin 2019). Researchers often bring Before the onset of global livability rankings, defi - their professional focus to defining livability, based nitions of livability consistently included housing cost on the tools and culture of their disciplines. Planners as an important criterion. Kaal cites a Dutch definition might describe livability through zoning strategies, of livability from 1959 that puts ‘proper housing’ first public space, walkability, and transit connections, and foremost (Kaal 2011, p. 536). As the Dutch defini - while architects might describe livability through the tion of livability evolved, it continued to cite ‘housing experience of building forms (Ruggeri et al. 2018, problems’ as a major threat to livability (Kaal 2011, p. 251). Urban quality can be defined through a more p. 537). phenomenological lens as well, tying livability to the The global rankings this article reviews, by simpli- subjectivity of human experience moving through fying and quantifying such a flexible concept (Brown space (Radović 2016). No discipline holds the copyright 1975; Kaal 2011; Ruggeri et al. 2018; McArthur and to the term. There is no universal definition. Robin 2019), stake their claim as experts in the dis- In addition to disciplinary distinctions, cultural var- course and create a narrative easily digested by the iations make setting any global standard for livability popular press. However, unlike the earlier definitions challenging. Global ranking systems claim of livability that Kaal describes, the version of livability a universality not matched by the inherent subjectiv- these rankings promote leaves out any measure of ity of the criteria they choose. A Japanese study on housing affordability. livability discusses the difficulty of even translating the word ‘livability’ into Japanese. Does it mean com- Ranking systems fortable, prosperous, or lively? (Capitanio 2017, p. 14). Livability rankings project the specificity and authority Organisations ranking cities for livability define the of quantitative comparison, but struggle to measure term in many ways. Mercer, EIU, and Monocle purport- a notoriously slippery concept (Kaal 2011; McArthur edly measure livability, or ‘quality of life,’ a term taken and Robin 2019, p. 10; Ruggeri et al. 2018). to be synonymous, as both terms are vaguely defined 72 S. CRAMER-GREENBAUM but target similar criteria. While there are countless varieties of city rankings covering economic perfor- mance or specific market sectors, this essay focuses only on those that quantify livability in cities world- wide. Systematic overviews of these rankings have been conducted based on their methods (Conger 2015), their criteria (Kaklauskas et al. 2018), and the divergent cultural value systems embedded in them (Capitanio 2017). This article is not intended to be a systematic overview, but rather a discussion of key missing criteria, why it is missing, and the consequent exclusive conceptualisation of livability the rankings Figure 1. Mercer, EIU, Monocle, and GLCI livability ranking criteria. project. The original global livability indices are the EIU Liveability Index and the Mercer Quality of Living Mercer, and Monocle intentionally screen their full pro- Survey (Taylor 2011; Conger 2015). Monocle cess for measuring criteria from public scrutiny, citing Magazine’s annual 25 Most Liveable Cities Index proprietary methods and research. In many cases the began in 2007 (Tuck and Brûlé 2018, p. 11), rapidly scores in each category are assigned subjectively (Taylor gaining comparable press attention (Conger 2015). All 2011, pp. 11–15), subject to biases depending on by and three rankings are annual, actively and regularly inter- for whom the ranking is conducted (Tan 2012; Conger jecting their framework for livability into the broader 2015; Capitanio 2017; Ruggeri et al. 2018). The widely livability discourse (McArthur and Robin 2019, p. 6). The divergent ranking results make evident the subjectivity Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI) was produced once of the ranking criteria and methods. The significant in 2012 at the National University of Singapore in variation in outcome is shown in Figure 2. In 2015, of response to the existing global rankings. The GLCI the 40 cities that made either Monocle, Mercer, or EIU’s attempts to provide a ‘best in class’ ranking by expand- top 25, 20 featured in only one of the three indices, and ing the definition of livability beyond the criteria only eleven cities were featured by all three. While all ranked by EIU, Mercer, and Monocle (Tan 2012, p. 2). four rankings include some criteria related to housing, The authors write, ‘The pertinent question concerns none incorporate criteria specifically designed to mea- how we are to justify the construction of another live- sure the availability of affordable housing relative to the able cities index without repeating or duplicating average incomes earned in the city. indices which are currently available’ (Tan 2012, p. xi). The ranking takes the ‘ordinary person’ perspective, claiming ‘The GLCI takes into explicit account a comprehensive list of the everyday concerns of the ordinary household: the maintenance of law and order, the availability of affordable healthcare, the average quality of the public school system, the accessibility to tertiary level training, and the adequacy of the mass transit infrastructure’ (Tan 2012, p. 2). The criteria ranked by the EIU, Mercer, Monocle, and the GLCI are shown in Figure 1, [Insert Figure 1] broadly focusing on categories of stability, healthcare, culture, environment, education, and infrastructure (Sarkawi et al. 2017). While the overall categories of criteria are in rough alignment, there are significant variations in how the criteria and subcriteria are weighted (Sarkawi et al. 2017). The rankings do not publicly offer specific quantitative analysis useful to cities targeting improve- Figure 2. Top 25 cities from the 2015 Mercer, EIU, and Monocle ment in their score (Kaklauskas et al. 2018). The EIU, livability rankings, and their intersections and overlap. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 73 Ranking system origins: livability vs. cost of Both Mercer and the EIU provide two distinct rank- living ings that separate cost of living from quality of living. The livability rankings were designed to determine Neither the EIU ranking nor the Mercer index has ever hardship bonuses, but have by default determined claimed to rank city livability for every city dweller. how these companies define liveability. The Head of Both the Mercer ranking and EIU index originated as City Research at EIU acknowledges that there is no tools for multinational companies looking to relocate reason for excluding affordability from liveability their employees (R. Slavcheva, personal communica- other than the ‘legacy’ model the companies have tion, 27 February 2019; Taylor 2011, pp. 11–14). always used (R. Slavcheva, personal communication, Mercer’s website explicitly states, ‘Mercer is the lead- February 27, 2019). ing provider of data on quality of living for employees One additional reason Mercer and the EIU separate sent to work abroad. Ongoing research on the practi- cost of living and livability might be that Cost of Living calities of daily life for these expatriate employees and analyses based on hard data are expensive to produce, their families forms the basis of our annual ranking of and both Mercer and the EIU sell the proprietary the quality of living’ (Quality of Living City Ranking | results as part of their business model. However, they Mercer 2019). Mercer acknowledges that their rank- release an overview of their livability rankings for free. ings are not for everyone, and that ‘disadvantaged This creates a false distinction between livability and residents can experience a poor quality of life in cost of living, while simultaneously popularising only a place with a high objective quality of living’ (Taylor the freely accessible livability rankings. The EIU releases 2011, p. 14). Their rankings are intended only for a free preview of their Cost of Living and Liveability corporate employees moving abroad. reports, but the full 2018 Cost of Living report was Both Mercer’s and EIU’s livability rankings were available for 995 USD (World Wide Cost of Living meant originally to supplement the Cost of Living 2018 2018). Mercer provides a per city Cost of Living data the companies provided to multinational report for 760, USD but provides their livable cities employers relocating staff or opening offices in new ranking for free (Quality of Living City Ranking | locations. Cost of Living reports set international pay Mercer 2019). This artificial split between cost of living scales, while companies use livability rankings to cal- and livability uncritically promotes, widely and pub- culate additional bonus pay. Mercer and the EIU both licly, a concept for livability that completely excludes research Cost of Living data extensively, and sell this the cost of living. proprietary research and data to global companies The authors of the GLCI report, although attempt- (Conger 2015, p. 5). The EIU Cost of Living report is ing to address livability for the ordinary person, still over 30 years old. EIU’s Liveability Ranking originated perpetuate this segregation of livability from cost of 20 years ago as a ‘sister survey’ (R. Slavcheva, personal living. In 2016 some of the authors of the GLCI communication, February 27, 2019) to the Cost of released a critique and enhancement of existing cost Living report, designed to calculate hardship bonus of living indices, again adapting the indices, as they pay in addition to base salary. The EIU created the had for livability, more towards the needs of the word ‘liveability’ with an ‘e’ to distinguish a new ver- ‘ordinary person’ (Giap and Duong 2016). However, sion of the survey from the first iteration designed to in this critique they maintain the separation of cost of calculate hardship pay percentages for relocated cor- living from livability that originated in Mercer and porate employees (Conger 2015, p. 6). The method EIU’s separate evaluation of salary and bonus pay. was updated in 2004 with expanded criteria for healthcare, stability (safety), and infrastructure, and the addition of education criteria (R. Slavcheva, perso- How the rankings are used nal communication, February 27, 2019). It continues to omit living costs. Living costs appear in the Cost of Press and governments around the world treat liva- Living survey, whereas the livability rankings were bility as a fundamental objective of city govern- meant to be supplementary, determining only how ment, despite the concept’s exclusive origins. much additional hardship pay a corporate employee Urban governments regard EIU and Mercer’s rank- might receive for being transferred to a location ings as a valuable barometer and benchmarking deemed less ‘livable.’ tool (Conger 2015; McArthur and Robin 2019; 74 S. CRAMER-GREENBAUM R. Slavcheva, personal communication, February 27; municipalities in assessing factors that can improve 2019) that can enhance urban ‘competitiveness’ their quality-of-living rank’ (Conger 2015, p. 7). EIU (Giffinger et al. 2010; Anttiroiko 2015), even though consults with cities on livability as well. According to these rankings treat livability as an additional set of the head of City Research at the EIU, the Liveability criteria to be evaluated after the fundamental Index and reports ‘inform and underpin other basics of living are met. Slavcheva proposes that research our public policy consulting arm undertakes’ cities looking to improve their rankings should (R. Slavcheva, personal communication, February 27, focus on their residents’ basic needs, but the cost 2019). The stubborn legacy model of consulting com- of living, specifically housing costs, are not panies, separating the cost of living from ‘liveability,’ accounted for in the rankings. This stark absence persists and pervades city policy aimed at raising of any housing affordability criteria in the EIU and a city’s livability score. One’s quality of life is directly Mercer rankings continues to perpetuate impacted by one’s ability to afford living within a definition of livability excluding the cost of living, a reasonable distance of the amenities touted by and the resulting disproportionate representation quality of life indices (Mitchell and Popham 2008; of highly unaffordable cities in the top tier has Marans 2011; Allen 2015; Hogan et al. 2016). Cities a ripple effect on urban policy and governments. need effective policies that frame livability as a universal right, not a list of desirable amenities. Impact on policy and governance Blunt instruments Governments take these rankings seriously. Many city governments hire consultants to help them move up The promoted use of rankings to enhance city brands the EIU ranking, or to be selected for the rankings at (Giffinger et al. 2010), has created a recursive feedback all (R. Slavcheva, personal communication, loop between livability rankings and urban policy. February 27, 2019). The Canadian Intergovernmental Eugene McCann demonstrates how, in the case of Committee for Economic and Labour Force US ‘Best Places’ rankings, media attention valorises Development (ICE) took these rankings seriously the ranked qualities, incentivising cities to focus policy enough to commission a comprehensive report on on these qualities (McCann 2004). City rankings accrue them in 2011. The report analysed the criteria used, power as cities feel required to compete (Brenner and evaluated how Toronto performs, and made recom- Wachsmuth 2012) to attract capital and talent around mendations for policymakers. The report concluded ‘If the world. The assumed necessity of competition for properly interpreted, city ranking studies are useful transnational skills and money exerts enormous pres- diagnostic tools. In light of their methodological sure on cities to achieve global recognition (Begg flaws . . . they should, however, be taken with a grain 2002; Moilanen and Rainisto 2009; Anttiroiko 2014, of salt. City ranking studies should be the start of 2015; Vanolo 2017). Rankings of various kinds have research and analysis by policymakers, not the end. become powerful through increasing media exposure They can help policymakers decide what questions to and subsequent popularity (Giffinger et al. 2010, pp. ask and what issues to focus on. Ultimately, however, 309–310). Cities recognise their value as strategic they should be supplemented by other tools’ (Taylor branding tools that enhance global competitiveness 2011, p. 69). The report’s author thoroughly unpacks (Giffinger et al. 2010; Anttiroiko 2015), thereby allow- multiple methodological problems with the most pre- ing rankings to affect policy decisions. valent city-ranking studies, and recommends caution The measurable and trackable qualities of city in using them, but still suggests these rankings should rankings make nuanced understandings of how cities start the conversation, helping ‘policymakers decide relate to one another impossible. There are many what questions to ask and what issues to focus on.’ limits to comparative studies using ‘quasi-scientific’ Livability rankings still set the agenda for cities criteria (Robinson 2016, p. 194). While the ‘quasi- focused on improvement, even if they are taken with scientific’ creates powerful and easily digestible narra- the recommended grain of salt. tives, the requisite averaging of data across wildly Mercer not only sets the tone for city improvement diverse territories within city-regions belies a more goals, but also actively consults within its own frame- complex reality (McArthur and Robin 2019, p. 13). work of value. Conger notes that ‘Mercer now assists This reality includes emerging models of urban INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 75 cooperation between cities, countering the competi- define the boundaries (Brenner and Schmid 2014; tive nature of rankings (Roy and Ong 2011). Ranking Conger 2015). Different boundary definitions for the systems by nature privilege competition over this same city cause metrics to diverge, and there is wide- evolving cooperation, driving livability discourse spread recognition that the political boundary at the deep into the city-region competition embedded in core of many cities has become an almost meaning- neoliberal global urbanism. The ranking structure can- less distinction (Brenner 2017, p. 189). Studies on not incorporate productive theorisations that cities Swiss commuting conclude that a nodal network of should relate to each other (Roy 2003; Ward 2008), frequent rail service and a distributed bus network, and form larger global networks across which not only combined with the strong regional ties of the popula- capital but also information and ideas flow. tion, have turned almost the whole country into one The collective idea of the ‘good city’ has changed integrated metropolitan region (Dessemontet et al. dramatically throughout history, making it impossible 2010, p. 2799). to apply an objective standard of quality ‘across space Many city and regional governments around the and time’ (Amin 2006, p. 1010). Amin argues for an world have recognised the phenomenon of conurba- urban ‘habit of solidarity’ (Amin 2006, p. 1012), akin to tion by developing agglomeration management zones Roy and Ong (2011) and Ward’s (2008) call for theoris- and plans. Livability rankings collect city-based data, ing urban areas in productive relation to each other, but don’t account for these nuances in city definition, not as competitors. He calls for envisioning ‘outcomes making no distinction between cities and their metro that benefit the more rather than the few’ (Amin 2006, areas. EIU’s Head of City Research admits they use ‘fluid’ p. 1012), an aim not supported by potent rankings definitions of city boundaries to create their city rank- that feed dangerous competition. ings, dependent on the data available from each city (R. Slavcheva, personal communication, February 27, 2019). This makes the comparison of urban scale data Quantifiable (mis)information: what the highly suspect. Does the EIU ranking compare rankings leave out Copenhagen Municipality or Greater Copenhagen to Many problems exist with the criteria used by global the city of Zurich or the Zurich Agglomeration? The ranking systems. While the GLCI index explicates lack of clear definition in Mercer, Monocle, and the EIU’s a clear breakdown of their ranking criteria, weighting, definition of each city undermines the claim to quanti- and data sources, Mercer, Monocle, and the EIU treat tative authority these rankings promote. this information as proprietary and confidential. This Even if the rankings were to collect only agglom- opacity of method in a purportedly quantitative rank- eration or metro area data, each city might define ing is problematic itself. Backsolving from the ranking these terms differently from each other. There is no results, by comparing the top ‘most livable’ cities to clear global metric or standard to define the extents of other rankings of cities that measure cost of housing, urbanised areas. The Canadian report on city-ranking indicates significant potential inconsistencies in the studies points out not only the variation and opacity ranking methods and criteria. The same approach of how most major ranking indices define ‘city,’ but reveals how Monocle, Mercer, and EIU’s top-ranked also the methodological dubiousness of comparing cities compare against two measurements of housing cities that may well be defining their boundaries dif- cost; one perceptive, and one quantitative. ferently from each other (Taylor 2011, p. 58). Which cities to rank? A second challenge of ranking cities is how the cities to be ranked are selected. The Borders, selection, and culture GLCI excludes a number of cities based on data avail- Three major flaws of livability ranking methodologies ability (Tan 2012, p. 45). Good data collection is not are how boundaries are determined, how cities to be a reasonable criterion of being a livable city, but in ranked are selected, and how cultural biases are data-based rankings, it becomes one. Urban data col- assumed. This is not an exhaustive list; these flaws lection varies wildly around the globe; data is over- highlight the range of challenges in comparatively sampled in Europe, Oceania, and North America rela- quantifying urban data. tive to their respective populations, and under- How to define the urban? One of the most basic sampled for Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Robin challenges of quantitatively evaluating cities is how to and Acuto 2018). The global regions with more 76 S. CRAMER-GREENBAUM available data correlate with those that feature most to the third biggest film industry in the world, and its prominently in livability indices. Data availability con- Afrobeat music pulses out to reach the ears of a global tributes disproportionately to city comparisons, and audience’ (Onuzo 2018). When culture is encapsulated having less data, or less accessible data, can make by museums, opera houses, and concert halls, Vienna cities disappear from international view (Robinson clearly excels. The cultural expressions Onuzo 2006). describes are less easily countable, and fall victim to Livability and culture: Cultural biases are inevitable either the rankings’ quantitative bent, or cultural in the perception and understanding of livability. biases in the definition of culture, or both. A study done at Keio University in Japan comparing criteria selection and weighting in various livability indices finds strong biases in the weighting of criteria. Missing cost of living For example, they cite the EIU’s strong weighting of EIU and Mercer are clear that they do not include widespread English usage, (Capitanio 2017, p. 14), affordable housing or cost of living in their rankings. indicative of the ranking’s intended purpose to eval- We compare the top ‘most livable’ cities to available uate ease of living for corporate expats. Mercer and city data on perceptions of housing availability and the EIU, followed by Monocle, make no attempt to the cost of housing, This comparison demonstrates qualify their findings within the context of livability’s how strong an effect the inclusion of affordable hous- culturally subjective nature. The GLCI claims to be ing might have on which cities are highly ranked. ‘best-in-its-class’ (Tan 2012, p. 2) by reorienting the Housing criteria in livability rankings: The EIU Index definition of livability towards the needs of the ‘ordin- dedicates one of thirty overall criteria for ‘availability of ary person,’ but still subjectively selects and weights good quality housing,’ roughly 3% of a city’s overall score the criteria that comprise ‘livability.’ (The Global Liveability Index 2018 2018, p. 9). They do These city rankings do not cater to a full range of not specify their definition of ‘quality,’ and do not include socio-cultural-economic groupings. The Keio University the cost of housing in their criteria. They only measure study states, ‘As Monocle [the magazine] targets cos- whether housing of some undefined quality is present. mopolitan, (single) urban readers, enjoying frequent One of Mercer’s ten categories is for housing, inclu- travels and abundant free time, its ranking deliberately sive of ‘Housing, household appliances, furniture, main- grants much importance to factors relating to personal tenance services, etc’ (Taylor 2011, p. 15). Mercer, like wellbeing and entertainment’ (Capitanio 2017, p. 14). EIU, does not factor the cost of housing into their rank- Monocle ranks cities for its own readers, but its rankings ing. Both EIU and Mercer have extensive data on hous- have an impact on policy beyond its readership. In ing costs in cities globally, but these costs are separately definitions of urban quality, ‘such contextual influences documented in the companies’ Cost of Living reports. makes it highly problematic to assume that models of Monocle does not publish criteria or any methodolo- the good city can travel unmodified across space and gical breakdown for the Annual Quality of Life Survey time’ (Amin 2006, p. 1010). Livability is constructed they have conducted since 2007. We take the Monocle culturally, and cannot escape its context. Guide to Building Better Cities, a collection of urban ‘best The definition of cultural institutions, as defined by practices,’ as a proxy for Monocle’s attitudes towards Mercer, Monocle, and the EIU, leaves little room for housing (Tuck and Brûlé 2018, p. 11). The authors nod cultural expression outside a limited western scope. to the importance of housing but don’t go deeper (Tuck Chibundo Onuzo, in a Guardian Opinion piece, cri- and Brûlé 2018, p. 192). The ‘best practices’ the book tiques the rankings’ myopic view of ‘Culture.’ Noting describes are a social housing complex in Mallorca, Lagos’ low rank in the EIU 2018 index, she acknowl- foundation-funded social housing in London, pre-fab edges the validity of many of Lagos’s low scores, but public housing in Knivsta, Sweden, and Kalkbreite coop- also writes, ‘In the culture and environment category . . erative housing in Zurich (Tuck and Brûlé 2018, pp. . Vienna scored 96.3 out of 100 and Lagos just 53.5 . . . 192–201). Of these four exemplars’ host cities, only Lagos is a city of galleries under bridges, where artists Zurich features in Monocle’s 2018 top 25 livable cities. paint and display for free. It’s a city of owambe parties While these singular examples contribute to the broader that last until dawn . . . Lagos is a city of fashion, home INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 77 discussion, they cannot replace a comprehensive evalua- tion of housing availability and affordability as a critical factor in one’s quality of life. The Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI) maintains the same split as EIU, Mercer, and Monocle, between ‘livability’ and cost of living, excluding the cost of living in their descriptive list of ‘the everyday concerns of the ordinary household.’ They do attempt to include the cost of housing in their enhanced index. As an ‘ideal indicator,’ they list ‘Affordability of hous- ing: To measure the cost of housing in comparison to Figure 3. Top 25 cities coloured according to the percentage of incomes earned’ (Tan 2012, p. 37). However, in their participants in the EuroSurvey 2015 who strongly disagree that it is ‘easy to find good housing at a reasonable price.’ Cities without final ranking they winnow the ‘ideal indicators’ into available data are left blank. proxy or ‘practical’ indicators (Tan 2012, p. 31). Their practical indicators for housing are the percentage of the urban population living in slums, using improved with it in Munich (European Commission 2016, p. 72). sanitation, and using an improved water source (Tan Figure 3 shows how Mercer, EIU, and Monocle’s top 25 2012, p. 41). They use the GINI index to measure cities from 2015 were evaluated by the EU study. In many overall inequality in the urban area, but in the prac- of the top cities, significant percentages of the popula- tical indicators they remove all parameters evaluating tion strongly disagreed that it was easy to find good housing affordability. housing at a reasonable price. In Munich, Paris, The Head of City Research at the EIU tells cities eager Stockholm, and Geneva, over 65% of respondents dis- to improve their EIU livability score that they should agreed that it was easy to find good housing at focus on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (R. Slavcheva, a reasonable price. personal communication, February 27, 2019), and meet Cities that are more expensive tend to rank higher for residents’ most basic needs first. Maslow’s hierarchy lists livability. When the EU asked which issues the residents physiological needs as the base of the pyramid, includ- thought were the greatest facing their city, the analysis ing food, water, sleep, and shelter in this category states that ‘The cities where housing is considered the (Maslow 1943). Shelter, on the base of Maslow’s pyramid, number one identified issue are Stockholm (61%), and central to earlier definitions of livability (Kaal 2011), Munchen (56%), Paris (54%), Geneva (51%), Greater is missing from how the EIU, Mercer, and Monocle define Paris (49%) [queried separately, along with three other the concept in their rankings. greater metropolitan areas], Amsterdam (45%) and Perceptions of housing cost: The European Union, in Kobenhavn (38%)’ (European Commission 2016, a 2015 report on ‘Quality of Life in European Cities,’ p. 165). There is significant overlap here with the top- evaluated quality of life, including cost and availability ranked cities per Mercer, Monocle, and EIU. of housing, through the perceptions of city residents. The EIU Cost of Living reports, based on external data study employed extensive surveys to collect data for frameworks, support the conclusions of the EU study’s residents’ perceptions of transit, healthcare, cultural resident perception approach. The EIU writes, ‘There is and commercial offerings, education, environment, pub- some correlation between The Economist Intelligence lic space, employment, housing, safety, governance, and Unit’s cost of living ranking and its sister ranking, the the presence of foreigners. In the section on housing, liveability survey. Put simply, cheaper cities also tend to survey respondents, roughly 500 in each city, were asked be less liveable’ (World Wide Cost of Living 2018 2018, the following question: ‘Please tell me whether you p. 5). Put another way, ‘livable’ cities, according to the strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or EIU ranking, have a much higher cost of living. The strongly disagree with the following statement – It is highly ranked cities significantly overlap with cities easy to find good housing at a reasonable price in where, according to the EU study, people perceive [CITY NAME]’ (European Commission 2016, p. 71). The serious problems in availability of affordable housing. responses demonstrate a marked variation among European cities, from 30% of respondents in Athens Calculations of housing cost: The AARP Livability agreeing with the statement and only 3% agreeing Index, described earlier as a model index, evaluates 78 S. CRAMER-GREENBAUM ‘Housing Cost Burden,’ the percentage of one’s income spent on housing. To recreate this criterion for the top-ranked global cities, we take the annual UBS Cost of Living data, exclude all categories except rental costs and average income, and calculate a Housing Cost Burden for the Mercer, EIU, and Monocle top 25 cities. The UBS Cost of Living data has been critiqued for being skewed towards expat- oriented expenses in the type of housing assessed (Giap and Duong 2016). UBS tracks three rent values in each city: rent for a three-bedroom furnished apart- ment, rent for a two-bed unfurnished apartment, and rent for ‘an apartment of typical size, location and Figure 4. Average 2015 monthly rent and average gross monthly income for cities in Mercer, EIU, and Monocle top 25, where data is amenities for the respective city’ (UBS 2018). In the available. The data come from the UBS Cost of Living survey for 2015 UBS Cost of Living analysis all three rents are and 2012. Earnings are gross earnings averaged across multiple weighted equally. For this study, we use only the professional classes. The rent average is for ‘the price of an apartment of typical size, location and amenities for the respective city.’. third category of housing, the ‘typical’ apartment for each city, orienting the housing cost burden towards the ‘typical’ city resident. The average income data comes from the UBS survey also, and represents the average of multiple professions across different socio- economic scales. This average is a blunt metric, and the results provide a broad impression of housing costs only, not meant to capture detailed city specifics. Figure 4 shows the rent and income data generated by this approach for each of the highly ranked cities in 2015 for which UBS collected data. Figure 4 demon- strates that while cities like Zurich and Geneva may have a high cost of housing, they have relatively high Figure 5. Housing Cost Burden calculated from rent as percentage of average incomes and therefore a lower housing cost income, from UBS Cost of Living data for 2015. The global average burden; i.e. residents spend a smaller percentage of burden of 23% also comes from the UBS data. their total income on housing than in other highly ranked cities. A counter-example is Paris, where housing is similar to other cities but the average income is quite UBS. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and low. A potential explanation for Zurich and Geneva Development (OECD) frequently uses housing costs demonstrating a relatively low housing cost burden burdens of over 40% to indicate ‘overburdened’ (Figure 5) but a high disagreement with the ability to households (OECD 2019). The average housing cost find reasonably priced housing in the EU perceptive burden in at least eleven of the 2015 highly ‘livable’ survey (Figure 3) is the relative availability of housing. cities was over 40%. The OECD also points out the Both Zurich and Geneva have lower rents but notor- danger of looking only at averages when evaluating iously low vacancy rates, and competition for housing housing cost burden. In their regularly updated is fierce (Federal Department of Home Affairs 2018). reported on global housing affordability in different Figure 5 shows the Housing Cost Burden for each countries, they write that housing cost burden ‘varies city that features on the EIU, Mercer, and Monocle top strongly across the income distribution and is consid- 25 from 2015, calculated as the percentage of income erably higher for the poorest households. In nearly all spent on rent. This calculation uses gross income. The countries housing cost burden as a share of income is majority of highly ‘livable’ cities have a housing bur- highest for households in the bottom quintiles of the den well over the global average of 23% calculated by income distribution’ (OECD 2019). The average for INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 79 most highly ranked ‘livable’ cities is already high; one p. 4). They are wildly imperfect but unlikely to lose can imagine the disproportionate overburdening their power. skewed towards the lowest income earners. Model definition Why this matters There are some livability rankings, more limited in According to UBS’s housing cost data in their annual scope, that do address affordability and access to hous- global Cost of Living survey, the cost of rent is the ing, making a strong case for the inclusion. One exam- biggest expense for residents in any city, on average ple is an active online ranking tool maintained by the almost a quarter of a family’s expenses (UBS 2018). UN AARP, formerly the American Association of Retired Habitat research supports this conclusion, finding that Persons. The AARP is an American non-profit serving in 200 cities around the world, households typically Americans age 50 and older. They maintain a livability paid over 25% of income for housing (Acioly 2019). index for United States city neighbourhoods that, Excluding it from the conception of livability, the way among many multifaceted criteria, evaluates housing Monocle, Mercer, and EIU do, excludes it from the costs, capping the monthly cost for housing at 4,000, significant press and attention livability receives. In USD and ranking neighbourhood livability higher the 2017 the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation produced lower the housing cost. While not a global index, this a short interview comparing Melbourne to Vancouver, example offers a compelling model for the inclusion of noting that while Melbourne keeps coming out on top economic access and affordability in a quantitative of livability rankings, Vancouver does a few things ranking system for livability. Of their index, the AARP better. CBC’s city columnist notes that Vancouver has writes, ‘Housing typically takes the biggest portion of more downtown housing, saying the city has ‘Family our paycheck or pension, and when prices soar, quality housing, housing that may be expensive but it can of life suffers. Higher monthly rent or mortgage pay- physically fit families, and we have 7,000 kids in our ments leave less money for food, transportation, and Downtown, [Melbourne] is very jealous of that’ (Quinn health care, and restrict housing options for house- and Toderian 2017). Who can afford the housing he is holds with fixed or low-to-moderate incomes’ (AARP touting is another question; he explicitly acknowledges Livability Index n.d.). The AARP index includes data on it is expensive, and Vancouver is not known for low the availability of subsidised housing, and most impor- housing prices (Devlin 2017). tantly, they include a metric for Housing Cost Burden, Livability rankings distract city governments from the percentage of one’s income spent on housing. addressing issues, such as affordable housing, that The AARP Livability Index does not face all the would not only increase the quality of life for many same challenges as global indices. Collecting this residents but also allow people to be residents who kind of data is easier for a neighbourhood than are currently excluded. Cities routinely hire consul- a city, and the index can use country-wide US tants to help them get a place on the rankings. (R. Census and Department of Housing and Urban Slavcheva, personal communication, February 27, Development data that is broadly comparable across 2019), indicating a willingness to spend resources on the US. This type of dataset is more complicated to the rankings as an end in themselves. The concept of obtain in a comparable format at a global scale, but livability continues to guide urban policy (Taylor 2011, the AARP makes a strong case that the costs of living, p. 69), and current conceptualisations must include specifically housing, are critical to evaluating livability, housing cost burdens, ensuring that city improve- and not impossible to include. Housing affordability is ment goals are not predetermined by companies a critical part of any definition of livability. As such explicitly serving corporate expats. a substantial percentage of household spending In a global neoliberal paradigm, cities leverage rank- (Acioly 2019), Housing Cost Burden has an outsize ings of their ‘livability’ to market themselves and com- impact on a household’s quality of life. pete with each other to capture global capital. The rankings feed a strong need for quantitative data and Moving forward: who can live in a ‘livable’ place? easily digestible narratives on the quality of urban life, and they continue to occupy growing space in news The AARP Livability Index described in this article media around the world (McArthur and Robin 2019, demonstrates a comprehensive model for a ranking 80 S. CRAMER-GREENBAUM that clearly defines and tracks affordability as a key Note criterion of livability. While the GLCI attempts to do 1. For full critique of UBS Cost of Living Survey methodol- this, it falls short; and its status as a one-time study, ogy, see (Giap and Duong 2016). One main critique not updated regularly, limits its ability to influence the argues that the ‘basket of goods’ evaluating for cost of livability debate. Annually released indices such as living is geared towards a highly skilled professional and not an average citizen. For the purposes of this analysis, Monocle, Mercer, and EIU have enormous impact, we have used only the housing cost data, not the cost of but work to shape cities only for the global mobile UBS’s ‘basket of goods.’ We have also used the raw data, elite to whom they cater. The AARP Livability Index and not the rankings calibrated against New York City. makes clear that a quantitative ranking of livability, despite the challenges of quantitative comparison, can still promote a more just and affordable city. The Disclosure statement Mercer and EIU infrastructure to evaluate cost of living No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. already exists; this data could be integrated to pro- mote a concept of livability that takes into account residents at different economic levels. Notes on contributor This essay demonstrates how three influential liva- Susannah Cramer-Greenbaum is a PhD Research Fellow at the bility indices omit housing costs, and thereby pro- Institute for Technology and Architecture at ETH Zürich. She mote an exclusive quality of life. Relevant topics for researches the impacts of urban development on resource dis- further study are the explicit effect of livability ranking tribution, inequality, displacement, and residential migration studies on real estate markets, as well as their long- patterns. term effect on migration of various demographics into and out of urban areas. Additionally, a comparative study showing how global rankings differ from more ORCID locally specific rankings could highlight the effect of Susannah Cramer-Greenbaum http://orcid.org/0000-0002- cultural perspectives in evaluation criteria and meth- 2391-5700 odology. This article focuses on livability studies that purport to be global but are produced in North References American and Western Europe; the East, Southeast, and South Asian liveability literature is large and AARP Livability Index. (n.d.). AARP. Retrieved 2019 Feb 15, from further studies are needed that focus on Asian livabil- categories/housing Acioly C (2019, April 5). The transformative power of housing at ity indices and their impacts from an Asian the center of the new urban agenda [Conference]. perspective. Wohnungsbau 2019 Land Nutzen!, ETH Zürich, Switzerland. Cities and city-regions absorb huge swathes of the Allen N. 2015. Understanding the importance of urban ame- world’s population. Finding a place to live in the city is nities: a case study from Auckland. Buildings. 5(1):85–99. the foundation on which other livable urban qualities doi:10.3390/buildings5010085. Amin A. 2006. The good city. Urban Stud. 43(5/6):1009–1023. build. Livability rankings assert themselves in the doi:10.1080/00420980600676717. broader livability discourse as agents of quantifiable Anttiroiko A-V. 2014. The political economy of city branding. Vol. measurement and benchmarks (McArthur and Robin 2. London: Routledge. 2019). They come in the guise of an objective metric Anttiroiko A-V. 2015. City branding as a response to global analysis, but explicitly represent ‘exclusionary and pri- intercity competition. Growth Change. 46(2):233–252. doi:10.1111/grow.12085. vatised interest’ (Amin 2006, p. 1012). They were Begg I. 2002. Urban competitiveness: policies for dynamic cities. never designed to inform urban policy, but their Bristol: Policy Press. impact in this realm is pervasive. If cities want to Brenner N. 2017. Critique of urbanization: selected essays. Vol. sustain diverse populations and flows of people, and 156. Gütersloh, Berlin, Basel: Bauverlag Birkhäuser. be more than a list of amenities for the global elite, Brenner N, Schmid C. 2014. The ‘Urban Age’ in question. Int J Urban Reg Res. 38(3):731–755. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12115. livability rankings must be treated as the highly sub- Brenner N, Wachsmuth D. 2012. Territorial competitiveness: jective barometer of elite needs that they are. The lineages, practices, ideologies. In: Sanyal, Bishwapriya, editor. pursuit of a high livability score should not dictate Planning ideas that matter: livability, territoriality, govern- who can afford urban life and the economic advan- ance, and reflective practice. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press; p. tages it provides. 181–182. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 81 Brown L. 1975. An annotated bibliography of the literature on McCann EJ. 2004. “Best places”: interurban competition, quality livability, with an introduction and an analysis of the litera- of life and popular media discourse. Urban Stud. 41 ture. Vol. 853. Manhattan, Kansas: Monticello - Ill. (10):1909–1929. doi:10.1080/0042098042000256314. Capitanio M. 2017. The relativity of liveability rankings examin- Mitchell R, Popham F. 2008. Effect of exposure to natural envir- ing the Japanese case against the global discourse. World onment on health inequalities: an observational population J Soc Sci. 5(1):12. doi:10.5430/wjss.v5n1p12. study. Lancet. 372(9650):1655–1660. Scopus. doi:10.1016/ Conger BW. 2015. On livability, liveability and the limited utility S0140-6736(08)61689-X. of quality-of-life rankings. Univ Calgary Sch Public Policy Moilanen T, Rainisto S. 2009. City and destination branding. In: Communiqué. 7(4):1–9. Moilanen T, Rainisto S, editors. How to brand nations, cities Dessemontet P, Kaufmann V, Jemelin C. 2010. Switzerland as and destinations: a planning book for place branding. a single metropolitan area? A study of its commuting network. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan UK; p. 77–146. Urban Stud. 47(13):2785–2802. doi:10.1177/0042098010377371. OECD. 2019. Housing costs over income. OECD Employment, Devlin J. 2017. Vancouver’s housing crisis. Land J. 26: August/ Labour and Social Affairs - Social Policy Division - September 2017. Directorate of OECD. http://www.oecd.org/social/affordable- European Commission. 2016. Quality of life in European cities housing-database.htm (No. 419). Onuzo C (2018, August 19). Who says the most liveable city is in Fainstein SS. 2001. Inequality in global city-regions. DisP. 37 the west? Culture doesn’t just live in museums | chibundu (144):20–25. doi:10.1080/02513625.2001.10556764. Onuzo. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/com Federal Department of Home Affairs. 2018. Quality of life in the mentisfree/2018/aug/19/vienna-lagos-economist- cities—Pocket statistics 2018. Federal Statistical Office. intelligence-unit-liveability-index https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalo Price MD. 2008. Migrants to the metropolis: the rise of immigrant gues-databases/publications.assetdetail.6926827.html gateway cities. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Giap TK, Duong LNT. 2016. Measuring cost of living for ordinary Quality of Living City Ranking | Mercer. 2019. https://mobili residents in cities: a new index. Bus Manage Stud. 2(3):76. tyexchange.mercer.com/Insights/quality-of-living- doi:10.11114/bms.v2i3.1824. rankings Giffinger R, Haindlmaier G, Kramar H. 2010. The role of rankings Quinn S, Toderian B 2017, April 20. Melbourne vs. Vancouver: in growing city competition. Urban Res Pract. 3(3):299–312. city planner puts urban centres head to head [Radio]. https:// doi:10.1080/17535069.2010.524420. www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/melbourne- The Global Liveability Index 2018. 2018. Economist intelligence vancouver-livability-1.4076935 unit. Radović D. 2016. Measuring the non-measurable: on mapping Harvey D. 2003. The right to the city. Int J Urban Reg Res. 27 subjectivities in urban research. City Culture Soc. 7(1):17–24. (4):939–941. doi:10.1111/j.0309-1317.2003.00492.x. doi:10.1016/j.ccs.2015.10.003. Hogan MJ, Leyden KM, Conway R, Goldberg A, Walsh D, Robin E, Acuto M. 2018. Global urban policy and the geopolitics McKenna-Plumley PE. 2016. Happiness and health across of urban data. Polit Geogr. 66:76–87. doi:10.1016/j. the lifespan in five major cities: the impact of place and polgeo.2018.08.013. government performance. Soc Sci Med. 162:168–176. Robinson J. 2006. Ordinary cities: between modernity and devel- doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.06.030. opment. London: Routledge. Kaal H. 2011. A conceptual history of livability. City. 15 Robinson J. 2016. Comparative urbanism: new geographies and (5):532–547. doi:10.1080/13604813.2011.595094. cultures of theorizing the urban. Int J Urban Reg Res. 40 Kaklauskas A, Zavadskas EK, Radzeviciene A, Ubarte I, (1):187–199. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12273. Podviezko A, Podvezko V, Kuzminske A, Banaitis A, Roy A. 2003. Paradigms of propertied citizenship: transnational Binkyte A, Bucinskas V. 2018. Quality of city life multiple techniques of analysis. Urban Affairs Rev. 38(4):391–463. criteria analysis. Cities. 72:82–93. doi:10.1016/j. doi:10.1177/1078087402250356. cities.2017.08.002. Roy A, Ong A. 2011. Worlding cities: Asian experiments and the Livingstone B 2019, February 8. Betting on transit—Millennials art of being global. Malden, Mass: Wiley-Blackwell. seek connected living. The London Free Press. https://calgary Ruggeri D, Harvey C, Bosselmann P. 2018. Perceiving the Livable herald.com/life/homes/condos/betting-on-transit- City. J Am Plann Assoc. 84(3–4):250–262. doi:10.1080/ millennials-seek-connected-living 01944363.2018.1524717. Marans RW. 2011. Investigating quality of urban life: theory, Sarkawi AA, Abdullah A, Dali N. 2017. A critical review on the methods, and empirical research. Vol. 45. Springer worldwide economist intelligence unit, mercer and monocle Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1742-8. quality of life indicators. J Bus Econ. 8(7):586–595. Maslow AH. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev. Sassen S. 2014. Expulsions, Brutality and Complexity in the 50(4):370–396. doi:10.1037/h0054346. Global Economy (Pilot project. eBook available to selected McArthur J, Robin E. 2019. Victims of their own (definition of) US libraries only). Harvard University Press. doi:10.4159/ success: urban discourse and expert knowledge production 9780674369818. in the liveable city. Urban Stud. 0042098018804759. Slavcheva R (2019, February 27). Phone interview with author doi:10.1177/0042098018804759. [Telephone]. 82 S. CRAMER-GREENBAUM Tan KG. 2012. Ranking the liveability of the world’s major cities: Vanolo A. 2017. City branding: the ghostly politics of representa- the Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI). Singapore: World tion in globalising cities. New York: Routledge. Scientific. Victoria Province. 2017, August 16. Seventh heaven for the Taylor Z 2011. ‘Lies, damned lies, and statistics’: a critical examination world’s most liveable city. Premier of Victoria. https://www. of city ranking studies. Intergovernmental Committee for premier.vic.gov.au/seventh-heaven-for-the-worlds-most- Economic and Labour Force Development. https://www.research liveable-city/ gate.net/publication/303444233_’Lies_Damned_Lies_and_ Ward K. 2008. Editorial—Toward a comparative (Re)turn in Statistics’_A_Critical_Examination_of_City_Ranking_Studies urban studies? Some reflections. Urban Geogr. 29 Tonkiss F. 2013. Cities by design: the social life of urban form. (5):405–410. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.29.5.405. Cambridge: Polity Press. World Wide Cost of Living 2018. 2018. The Economist Intelligence Tuck A, Brûlé T. 2018. The Monocle guide to building better Unit. cities. Berlin: Die Gestalten Verlag. Zeitung DW. 2017, March 14. Vielleicht bleiben wir ewig UBS. 2018. Global cities ranking 2018 _ UBS prices and earnings. Nummer eins. Stadtleben - Die Wiener Zeitung. https://www. https://www.ubs.com/microsites/prices-earnings/en/ wienerzeitung.at/nachrichten/wien/stadtleben/879535_ methodology/ Vielleicht-bleiben-wir-ewig-Nummer-1.html

Journal

International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development – Taylor & Francis

Published: Jan 2, 2021

Keywords: Livability; city ranking; comparative urbanism; sustainable housing; city branding; global cities

There are no references for this article.